AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir. In the State of Maharashtra, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City. The details of this FIR are: Maharashtra FIR No. 238 of 2020, dated 22 April 2020, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City, Maharashtra, Under Sections 153, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 298, 500, 504(2), 506, 120-B and 117 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Apart from the above FIR, as many as fourteen other FIRs and complaints have been lodged against the Petitioner, of which the details are extracted below: * FIR No. 245 of 2020, dated 22 April 2020, registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Under Sections 153-A, 295-A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code 1860. * FIR No. 180 of 2020, dated 23 April 2020, registered at Police Station Bhilal Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Under Sections 153-A, 188, 290 and 505(1) of the Indian Penal Code 1860. * FIR No. 176 of 2020, dated 22 April 2020, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Under Sections 153-A, 295-A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code 1860. * Complaint dated 21 April 2020 by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for public viewing online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2i4MMpKu9I 4. The viewpoint which the Petitioner claims to have put across during the course of the broadcast, is described in the following extract from the Writ Petition which has been instituted by the Petitioner before this Court Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution: A review of the above debate would show that its thrust was to question the tardy investigation, inconsistent versions of the authorities and the administration and the State Government's silence on the Palghar incident given that the unfortunate incident happened in Maharashtra which is presently Under Rule of an alliance government jointly formed by Shiv Sena, the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party. The debate highlighted the manner in which the incident was being portrayed by the authorities, including the glaring fact that the incident occurred in the presence of numerous police officials which fact was initially suppressed. 5. The Petitioner claims that following the broadcast, "a well-coordinated, widespread, vindictive and malicious campaign" was launched against him by the Indian National Congress [IN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his colleagues at Republic TV and R Bharat. 8. While entertaining the Writ Petition on 24 April 2020, this Court heard submissions by Senior Counsel: on behalf of the Petitioner by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Siddhartha Bhatnagar; on behalf of the State of Maharashtra by Mr. Kapil Sibal; on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh by Mr. Vivek Tankha; and on behalf of the State of Rajasthan by Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Having heard the rival submissions, this Court noted in its interim order that the order which it intended to pass should strike a balance between the following governing principles: (i) The need to ensure that the criminal process does not assume the character of a vexatious exercise by the institution of multifarious complaints founded on the same cause in multiple States; (ii) The need for the law to protect journalistic freedom within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution; (iii) The requirement that recourse be taken to the remedies available to every citizen in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; (iv) Ensuring that in order to enable the citizen to pursue legal remedies, a protection of personal liber....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against coercive steps arising out of and in relation to the above FIR, in relation to the telecast dated 21 April 2020; (v) Granted liberty to the Petitioner to move an application for anticipatory bail before the Bombay High Court Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 [CrPC] and to pursue such other remedies as are available in law. It was clarified that any such application shall be considered on its own merits by the competent court; (vi) Stayed further proceedings in respect of any other FIR, or as the case may be, criminal complaints which have been filed or which may thereafter be filed with respect to the same incident; and (vii) Directed the Commissioner of Police [CP], Mumbai to consider the request of the Petitioner for being provided with security at his residence and at the business establishment. 10. Following the interim order of this Court, several interim applications were filed in the course of the proceedings. The details of each of the IAs are necessary to facilitate our eventual analysis of the case: IA No. 48585 of 2020: filed by the Petitioner 11. The Petitioner submits that: (i) The Mumbai polic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een provided with a clip of the broadcast; (f) A substantial bulk of the questions during the investigation was in relation to a small segment comprising fifteen seconds out of a total broadcast of fifty-two minutes; (g) During the course of the investigation, the Petitioner was asked by the IO whether he had defamed or maligned the President of the INC in the course of the broadcast on 21 April 2020; (h) FIR 164 of 2020 is not based on a complaint by the President of the INC and hence, it is inconceivable as to how the IO could have questioned the Petitioner on an alleged act of defamation which he, in any event, denies; (i) Tweets made on the social media by members of the INC during and around the time of the investigation indicate that the Mumbai police was relying on real time information during the course of the interrogation by "their political masters"; (j) Questions posed to the Petitioner during the course of the investigation have no nexus to FIR 164 of 2020. The questions which were posed included the following: (i) Corporate structure of the Petitioner's company, ARG Outlier Media Asianet Private Limited ("ARG")....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ou that this country's former home minister and former finance minister P. Chidambaram was made to sit for so many hours, why did that happen? You people never raise questions on the reason behind that interrogation. I have heard that clip and Arnab tried to stoke communal sentiments in that speech. No one gave him that right, not even the Constitution. (l) On 30 April 2020, the IO issued two notices to the Chief Financial Officer [CFO] of Republic TV Under Sections 91 and 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting for documents. Pursuant to the notice, the CFO appeared before the Mumbai police with publicly available documents and copies of broadcast licenses. He was interrogated for about 6.5 hours inter alia in regard to the following aspects: (i) Role of the Petitioner's wife, Mrs. Samyabrata Ray Goswami in the news channels and the corporate structure of company. (ii) Details of the investors in the Petitioner's company, ARG Outlier Media News Private Limited and whether the Petitioner ran the news channel as a proxy owner for an on behalf of someone else. (iii) Surprisingly, Mr. Sundaram was also asked whether there was "s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion in Mumbai. The Mumbai police has sought to highlight the conduct of the Petitioner in obstructing the due course of investigation. The reliefs which have been sought in the IA are as follows: a. Issue appropriate directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit so as to insulate the investigation agency from any pressure, threat or coercion from the Petitioner and to enable the Investigating Agency to carry out its lawful obligations in a fair and transparent manner; b. Restrain the Petitioner from abusing the interim protection granted to the Petitioner vide the order dated 24th April 2020; 14. The basis of the IA appears from the following averments: (i) On 27 April 2020, the Petitioner attended the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai at 9 am accompanied by an entourage of his reporters and camerapersons and gave several speeches which were allegedly telecast live; (ii) After the Petitioner had been interrogated for 4 hours, a tweet was posted on Republic Bharat stating in Hindi that upon coming out of the police station, the Petitioner had claimed that 'truth will prevail'; (iii) Two other tweets posted on Republic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out the equity cash transactions, the names of the remaining stakeholders, investment by the key investor and the role of the Petitioner's spouse; and (iv) The CFO was interrogated on the editorial process of the channel, the editorial teams involved and the process whereby a programme is put together. The IO also inquired about how participants are chosen. IA 48586 of 2020: filed by the Petitioner 16. The Petitioner moved this IA seeking an amendment to the petition filed Under Article 32. The Petitioner seeks the addition of the following reliefs: (i) A declaration that Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code is violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and is hence unconstitutional; (ii) A declaration that FIR 164 of 2020 [Formerly FIR 238 of 2020] and the consequent investigation initiated by the State of Maharashtra are illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner Under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution; (iii) A writ of prohibition restraining the State of Maharashtra from registering any FIR against the Petitioner in relation to the broadcast on R Bharat on 21 April 2020 in relation to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch as the aforesaid repeatedly on the show, he has severely hurt the sentiments of the Muslim community. He has tried to create communal tensions, incite riots and deliberately hurt the sentiments of the Muslim community by insulting their place of worship. By directly connecting the gathering of migrant workers at the Bandra railway station on 14/04/2020 with Jama Masjid, Arnab Goswami disrupted communal harmony. His statements further implied that the Muslim community is violent and does not respect the law. Arnab Goswami as the owner and anchor of the said TV show has made these statements with an intention of create a strain/communal disharmony between the Hindu and Muslim communities. 19. Having adverted to the telecast which took place on 29 April 2020, the FIR makes a reference to 14 April 2020 as the date on which the Petitioner as the "anchor and owner" of R Bharat has attempted to connect a place of religious worship with the gathering of migrant workers at Bandra railway station. The FIR has been registered Under Sections 153, 153A, 295A, 500, 505(2), 511, 505(1)(c) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Challenging the FIR, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... President of the INC. The police are trying to implicate the Petitioner in the offence of defamation despite the settled position of law that absent a complaint by the person who is allegedly defamed, no FIR can be lodged; and g. The Petitioner has, in the course of his programmes on R Bharat and Republic TV, implicated the Maharashtra police and the State Government for their failure to investigate the Palghar incident. He has leveled serious allegations against the CP, Mumbai. Hence, there is an evident conflict of interest in the investigation being conducted by the Mumbai police and the Petitioner apprehends that a fair and impartial process will be denied to him were the investigation to continue; and (iv) In the circumstances which have been set out above, it is appropriate to protect the constitutional rights of the Petitioner by directing that the investigation be stayed or that, in the alternative, it be handed over to the CBI. 21. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General has urged that this is a peculiar situation where the Mumbai police, as the investigating agency, has sought the protection of this Court in order to conduct a fair and impartial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(vii) Mumbai police has no territorial jurisdiction or connection with the investigation which has been conducted into the Palghar incident; (viii) The conduct of the Petitioner would indicate that he has made baseless allegations against the CP, Mumbai for the first time after his interrogation took place on 27 April 2020. The attempt by the Petitioner is clearly to use his position as a media journalist to create an environment of ill-feeling towards the investigating agency; (ix) As regards the second FIR, no investigation has commenced and hence recourse to the jurisdiction of this Court Under Article 32 is premature; (x) Despite the liberty which was granted to the Petitioner by this Court in its order dated 24 April 2020, the Petitioner has neither moved the Bombay High Court for quashing the FIRs Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or for the grant of anticipatory bail; and (xi) In the above circumstances, the petitions filed by the Petitioner Under Article 32 of the Constitution ought not to be entertained. 23. Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the investigating agency of the Mahara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansfer of the investigation to the CBI. He urged that the second Writ Petition must, in any event, be dismissed. 26. At this stage, it is necessary to note that the attention of Mr. Kapil Sibal and Dr Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel was specifically drawn to the fact that the FIRs which were filed in various states by persons professing allegiance to the INC appear, prima facie, to be reproductions of the same language and content. Responding to this, Mr. Sibal fairly stated that in the exercise of the jurisdiction Under Article 32, this Court may well quash all the other FIRs and allow the investigation into the FIR which has been transferred to the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai to proceed in accordance with law. Mr. Sibal has also urged that there cannot be any dispute in regard to the legal position that a complaint in regard to the offence of defamation can only be at the behest of the person who is aggrieved. Consequently, the FIR which has been presently under investigation at the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai would not cover any offence Under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. 27. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re. The Court held that "there can be no second FIR" where the information concerns the same cognisable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognisable offences. This is due to the fact that the investigation covers within its ambit not just the alleged cognisable offence, but also any other connected offences that may be found to have been committed. This Court held that once an FIR postulated by the provisions of Section 154 has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR as doing so would fail to comport with the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court observed: 18. ...All other information made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first information report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling Under Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure. No such information/statement can properly be treated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, this Court held that: 11. ...Of course the legal position is that there cannot be two FIRs against the same Accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. 30. In Saldanha, this Court had held that the power conferred upon the Magistrate Under Section 156(3) does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of the report Under Section 173(8). In Upkar Singh, this Court noted that the decision in Ram Lal Narang is "in the same line" as the judgments in Kari Choudhary and Saldanha and held that the decision in TT Antony does not preclude the filing of a second complaint in regard to the same incident as a counter complaint nor is this course of action prohibited by the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that context, this Court held: 23. Be that as it may, if the law laid down by this Court in T.T. Antony case [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri.) 1048] is to be accepted as holding that a second complaint in re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that offences have been committed under the provisions of Sections 153, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of the hearing, this Court has had the occasion, with the assistance of the learned Senior Counsel, to peruse the several complaints that were filed in relation to the incident dated 21 April 2020. They are worded in identical terms and leave no manner of doubt that an identity of cause of action underlies the allegations leveled against the Petitioner on the basis of the programme which was broadcast on 21 April 2020. Moreover, the language, content and sequencing of paragraphs and their numbering is identical. It was in this backdrop that Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel fairly submitted (in our view correctly) that this Court may proceed to quash all the other FIRs and complaints lodged in diverse jurisdictions in the States, leaving open, however, the investigation in respect of the FIR 238 of 2020 dated 22 April 2020 transferred from the Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City to NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. 32. Article 32 of the Constitution constitutes a recognition of the constitutional duty ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....television show would leave no manner of doubt that the intervention of this Court is necessary to protect the rights of the Petitioner as a citizen and as a journalist to fair treatment (guaranteed by Article 14) and the liberty to conduct an independent portrayal of views. In such a situation to require the Petitioner to approach the respective High Courts having jurisdiction for quashing would result into a multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary harassment to the Petitioner, who is a journalist. 34. The issue concerning the registration of numerous FIRs and complaints covering different states is however, as we will explain, distinct from the investigation which arises from FIR 164 of 2020 at NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. The Petitioner, in the exercise of his right Under Article 19(1)(a), is not immune from an investigation into the FIR which has been transferred from Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City to NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. This balance has to be drawn between the exercise of a fundamental right Under Article 19(1)(a) and the investigation for an offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure. All other FIRs in respect of the same in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations. (Emphasis supplied) This principle has been reiterated in K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai (2013) 12 SCC 480. Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan, speaking for a three judge Bench of this Court held: 13. ...This Court has time and again dealt with the issue under what circumstances the investigation can be transferred from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI. It has been held that the power of transferring such investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instill confidence in the public mind, or where investigation by the State police lacks credibility and it is necessary for having "a fair, honest and complete investigation", and particularly, when it is imperative to retain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t for the exercise of that extraordinary power. It is necessary to address the grounds on which the Petitioner seeks a transfer of the investigation. The grounds urged for transfer are: (i) The length of the interrogation which took place on 27 April 2020; (ii) The nature of the inquiries which were addressed to the Petitioner and the CFO and the questions addressed during interrogation; (iii) The allegations leveled by the Petitioner against the failure of the State government to adequately probe the incident at Palghar involving an alleged lynching of two persons in the presence of police and forest department personnel; (iv) Allegations which have been made by the Petitioner on 28 April 2020 in regard to CP, Mumbai; and (v) Tweets on the social media by activists of the INC and the interview by the complainant to a representative of R Bharat. 39. As we have observed earlier, the Petitioner requested for and consented to the transfer of the investigation of the FIR from the Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City to the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. He did so because an earlier FIR lodged by him at that police station w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as being conducted by the CBI, looking to the fact that the investigation was far from complete. This Court observed that: 4. ...Any observations which may amount to interference in the investigation, should not be made. Ordinarily the Court should refrain from interfering at a premature stage of the investigation as that may derail the investigation and demoralise the investigation. Of late, the tendency to interfere in the investigation is on the increase and courts should be wary of its possible consequences. This Court adopted the position that courts must refrain from passing comments on an ongoing investigation to extend to the investigating agencies the requisite liberty and protection in conducting a fair, transparent and just investigation. 41. The contention of the Petitioner that the length of the investigation or the nature of the questions addressed to him and the CFO during the interrogation must weigh in transferring the investigation cannot be accepted. The investigating agency is entitled to determine the nature of the questions and the period of questioning. The Petitioner was summoned for investigation on one day. Furthermore, the allegati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e disinclined to do so. 44. In assessing the contention for the transfer of the investigation to the CBI, we have factored into the decision-making calculus the averments on the record and submissions urged on behalf of the Petitioner. We are unable to find any reason that warrants a transfer of the investigation to the CBI. In holding thus, we have applied the tests spelt out in the consistent line of precedent of this Court. They have not been fulfilled. An individual under investigation has a legitimate expectation of a fair process which accords with law. The displeasure of an Accused person about the manner in which the investigation proceeds or an unsubstantiated allegation (as in the present case) of a conflict of interest against the police conducting the investigation must not derail the legitimate course of law and warrant the invocation of the extraordinary power of this Court to transfer an investigation to the CBI. Courts assume the extraordinary jurisdiction to transfer an investigation in exceptional situations to ensure that the sanctity of the administration of criminal justice is preserved. While no inflexible guidelines are laid down, the notion that such a tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f a person who is or has been the Governor of that State or a Minister of that Government or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State and of the Central Government, in any other case. Sub-section (5) bars the Court of Sessions from taking cognisance of an offence Under Sub-section (2) unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. Sub-section (6) states that nothing in this Section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognisance of the offence upon such complaint. [Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law: (2016) 7 SCC 221 at paragraph 197] 46. Interpreting this provision, a two judge Bench of this Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law (2016) 7 SCC 221 ("Subramanian Swamy") held that neither can an FIR be filed nor can a direction be issued Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is only a complaint which can be instituted by a perso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not cover any alleged act of criminal defamation. We will clarify this in our final directions. 48. Before we conclude, it is necessary to advert to the interim order of this Court dated 24 April 2020. By the interim order, the Petitioner has been granted liberty to move the competent court in order to espouse the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, we clarify that this Court has not in the present judgment expressed any opinion on the FIR which is under investigation at the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. 49. We hold that it would be inappropriate for the court to exercise its jurisdiction Under Article 32 of the Constitution for the purpose of quashing FIR 164 of 2020 under investigation at the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. In adopting this view, we are guided by the fact that the checks and balances to ensure the protection of the Petitioner's liberty are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Despite the liberty being granted to the Petitioner on 24 April 2020, it is an admitted position that the Petitioner did not pursue available remedies in the law, but sought instead to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Counsel that fairness in the administration of criminal justice would warrant the exercise of the jurisdiction Under Article 32 to quash all other FIRs (save and except for the one under investigation in Mumbai). However, we do so only having regard to the principles which have been laid down by this Court in TT Antony. The filing of multiple FIRs arising out of the same telecast of the show hosted by the Petitioner is an abuse of the process and impermissible. We clarify that the quashing of those FIRs would not amount to the expression of any opinion by this Court on the merits of the FIR which is being investigated by the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. 52. We find no reason to entertain the subsequent Writ Petition [Writ Petition (Crl.) Diary No. 11189 of 2020] which has been filed by the Petitioner in respect of the FIR lodged at Pydhonie Police Station (FIR 137 of 2020 dated 2 May 2020). The basis on which the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked in the first Writ Petition-the filing of multiple FIRs in various states-is absent in the subsequent Writ Petition (Crl.) Diary No. 11189 of 2020. The Petitioner would be at liberty to pursue his remedies under the law ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hhattisgarh. * Complaint dated 22 April 2020 by Pritam Deshmukh (adv.), Durg District Congress Committee-to SHO city PS Durg, Chhattisgarh. * Complaint dated 22 April 2020 by Suraj Singh Thakur, State Vice President, Indian Youth Congress-to Sr. Police Officer, Chirag Nagar, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai. * Complaint dated 22 April 2020-Pankaj Prajapti (party worker of INC and ex-spokesperson NSUI) through counsel Anshuman Shrivastavas-Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. * Complaint dated 22 April 2020-Balram Jakhad (adv.)-to PS Shyam Nagar-Under Section 153, 188, 505, 120B in Jaipur. * Complaint by Jaswant Gujar-to SHO Bajaj Nagar PS, Jaipur. * Complaint dated 22 April 2020 by Fundurdihari, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh-Rajesh Dubey, Chhattisgarh State Congress Committee-to SHO Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur-Under Section 153, 153A, 153B, 504, 505. * Complaint dated 22 April 2020 in Telangana by Anil Kumar Yadav, State President of Telangana Youth Congress-to SHO Hussaini Alam-Under Section 117, 120B, 153, 153A, 295A, 298, 500, 504, 505 and 506. Also 66A of the IT Act. * Complaint dat....